Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Georgia has not had a Republican governor since Conley. That is not an opinion; that is fact as Purdue and Deal are Democrats under the Republican label.
Georgia has not had a Republican governor since Conley. That is not an opinion; that is fact as Purdue and Deal are Democrats under the Republican label.
That is your opinion, not fact.. And I doubt very much that you would really consider Conley a Republican by current party standards. If Deal and Perdue are too liberal for your tastes, and I assume that's what you mean by "Democrats under the Republican label", I doubt that in the context of their times you would consider New York born Rufus Bullock (elected 1868) or New Jersey born Benjamin Conley, who were for their times liberal and dependent on the votes of freed slaves for election to really be "Republican" by current party definition.
Both parties have strayed from their historical roots. The original Democrats were Jeffersonians. The original Republicans were Hamiltonians. Now they have basically switched roles. The party labels remain, but they mean entirely different things than they did originally.
It disagrees with you if you think there hasn't been an R Governor of Georgia since Reconstruction.
If you truly believe that Perdue and Deal are "not Republicans" it would make more sense to say that in your mind there has never been a Republican Governor of Georgia.
Why?
The previous 2 Republican governors were elected during Reconstruction on the basis of votes from fellow Yankee carpetbaggers and recently freed slaves. Most of the white population of Georgia were former Confederates who were banned from voting prior to the Compromise of 1876 which permitted the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as President in exchange for ending Reconstruction and removing federal troops from the South.
Just guessing, here, but if you think that Perdue and Deal, are not "real Republicans", you'd probably think the same of those long dead carpetbaggers once you examined their records, and they would probably say the same about you.
there have been 40 governors since 1865...of those only 3 have been republican...all others (37) democrat
the democrats have controlled Georgia legislature for the last 150 years up until 2005
People vote, not a piece of land, most of the counties of the ny state went to Trump, however the majority of the population of ny lives in the counties that voted for hilary. In a democratic system, Democrats would always win because the majority of the population is concentrated in cities and democratic states, this system is still not ideal for a country as heterogenous as ours.
I would not want to have our politics dominated by California and New York ... My husband is Brazilian and his country is as big as ours and there the Brazilians choose their presidents by majority vote of the population, with which the circle of power is Concentrated In two states, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, causing them to receive more attention from the government than other states, becoming richer and more developed than others, so today in Brazil to have access to good schools good jobs good salaries, a more developed health system the Brazilians have to move to one of these two states. .. with the mass migration of Brazilians to these two states, they have become super populous, they lack housing for all, traffic is chaos, health care system is bankrupt, violence is out of control, the cost of living is high.. I do not want to see something similar happening here.
Texas seeing an influx of people from all over will not change the state to blue anytime soon. Just look at AR for an example. We were always blue until about 2008; now almost every state and federal elected official is a Republican. We too, have a huge influence of people from other parts of the country and world moving in Most people do not realize how diverse the state has become. As more industry moves to NWA more people from other parts of the country are re-locating here.
Va goes back and forth depending on how the wind is blowing.
AZ; unlikely to swing in the near future, but probably eventally.
I don't think Texas will go blue in my lifetime. Which is not to say it won't have a Democratic governor. It may. Massachusetts and Maryland have Republican governors but are still blue states. Likewise if Texas has a Democrat as its governor it will still be a red state. It is not in the economic interest of Texas to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. Hillary was an avowed enemy of fossil fuels and supported policies that would have greatly hurt the Lone Star State.
I think if the situation in the Rust Belt is making those states competitive and as some have stated, moving more towards the Republican column, I think the same thing could be said about some other states moving in the opposite direction.
I think Arizona could easily flip to being a blue state given the demographic changes out there and the Hispanic influence. The state also doesn't have a huge evangelical bent and is more libertarian than authoritarian on social issues. Arizona also has strong cultural ties to Southern California, which other than in Los Angeles proper, once leaned Republican but now is a solidly blue megalopolis.
I think Georgia is the next state to do with Virginia did. Metro Atlanta is growing and becoming bluer, while rural Georgia is aging. I think the balance will be tipped there soon and Georgia will become a blue-leaning state, much like Virginia.
North Carolina on the other hand is more likely to become a Florida. It will remain a red leaning state but be very competitive for Democrats.
The big thing the GOP needs to watch is Texas. Texas is currently seeing an influx of people from all over the country and world. It's cities are becoming very culturally and politically diverse and that breeds liberalism. It shows as most of Texas' large cities are solidly liberal. The state is simply so large and has such a large rural population that Republicans dominate it. That could change. As Texas cities continue to grow and become more diverse and rural Texas continues to decline, the scale could tip there in favor of the Democrats. If that ever happens, the GOP is done. I think that we are probably 10-12 years away from this if it were to happen, but it's something the GOP needs to watch if it wants to remain a viable national party in the future.
This sounds all very familiar...lol weren't you all saying Georgia (LOL), Arizona, Texas, etc. would vote for Hillary?
Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire will become red before any of those states become blue.
Gotta love all the "Rust Belt" experts who don't live here. History has shown the so-called Rust Belt and Midwest in general vote for the candidate, not the party. Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio aren't all of a sudden going to be voting Republican every election just because of one (close) presidential result in 2016.
If Democrats continue to focus on things like letting in all the illegal immigrants and refugees, and catering to the transgenders, and being PC about everything, while ignoring the white blue collar workers who used to faithfully vote for them, they will continue to lose voters in the rust belt.
If anyone thinks that the Democrats are going to regain any kind of strength, then I've got 900 acres of West Texas desert land that I'd like to sell you. No way that red states are going blue any time soon. And blue states are going to have a hard enough time staying blue because people are finally seeing what Democrats really are and what they're all about, with some folks either going independent or switching party lines entirely. More and more Republicans are winning governor seats and mayoral races, and that trend will continue through state and city elections in the next two years. And it's speculated that the Senate could have 60 Republican seats after that same amount of time.
And to make it worse for the leftists, they never vote in mid-term elections.
This, and aren't they just having a bad week?
You can tell how good a week Trump had by how hard the lefties grip and spin and spit and gnash their teeth. It's entertaining. Better than sports by far.
I think the truth is that in the short-term (next 2-3 POTUS cycles) the paths for both parties are thru the industrial Midwest. The Dems have gotten an edge in three of the states Dubya carried twice in his two narrow wins; Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, plus a state he carried once in New Mexico. Both parties come up short without it.
I expect for the battles in the near future to be centered on Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and possibly Iowa and Ohio.
The most positive development in 2016 for the R's was probably their margins in Iowa and Pennsylvania, and their showing in North Carolina. Those were really solid wins. In the other states I mentioned, all were 1% or so wins, Minnesota and NH for Hillary and Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump.
A reason that Ohio was such a blowout for Trump was that Ohio's voting in 2016 resembled voting patterns in the Deep South in that there was relatively little variance between white college and white non-college voters. I think there was only about a 4% variance in Ohio. In Iowa, there was a 9% educational divide in the white vote, but with an electorate that was 90% white, it wasn't nearly large enough to matter. In contrast in Pennsylvania, white college voters narrowly backed Clinton, not enough to save the state for her, but enough when coupled with the minority vote to keep it close. How closely or far apart the white college vote varies from the white non-college vote will likely determine how these states ultimately fall.
I look for the key to those states to remain the battle for the 'burbs. I don't deny that NAFTA is a potent issue, but I think it's more complicated than that, and we're going to need to see at least a couple more cycles before we know for sure where we stand.
I think Maine too. I remember when people were laughing about campaigning in Maine, but it was one of the closest states and Trump managed to win one of the districts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No way that red states are going blue any time soon. And blue states are going to have a hard enough time staying blue because people are finally seeing what Democrats really are and what they're all about, with some folks either going independent or switching party lines entirely. More and more Republicans are winning governor seats and mayoral races, and that trend will continue through state and city elections in the next two years. And it's speculated that the Senate could have 60 Republican seats after that same amount of time.
